Introduction:
In a significant judgment concerning public employment and the limits of judicial intervention in recruitment policies, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has reaffirmed that candidates cannot claim age relaxation as a matter of right merely because recruitment examinations were not conducted for several years. The Tribunal held that the fixation of age limits is a policy decision falling within the domain of the employer and that courts and tribunals cannot rewrite eligibility criteria prescribed under statutory recruitment rules or advertisements.
The decision was rendered in a batch of Original Applications led by Ashwani Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The matter was adjudicated by a Division Bench comprising Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (Judicial), and Ram Mohan Johri, Member (Administrative).
The dispute arose from an advertisement notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) inviting applications for 669 posts of Sub-Inspector in the Jammu and Kashmir Police. The advertisement prescribed an age limit of 18 to 28 years for candidates belonging to the Open Merit category, with age to be reckoned as on 1 January 2024.
The applicants were residents and domiciles of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir who aspired to participate in the recruitment process. According to them, they fulfilled all qualifications prescribed for the post except that they had crossed the upper age limit of 28 years. Their principal grievance was that the previous recruitment for Sub-Inspector posts had been conducted in 2021 and the subsequent recruitment notification was issued only after a gap of more than three years. As a result of this delay, several candidates who would otherwise have been eligible became overage and were deprived of the opportunity to compete for public employment.
The controversy acquired further significance because in the 2021 recruitment process, the Government had granted a one-time relaxation of the upper age limit from 28 years to 30 years through S.O. 420 of 2021. The applicants argued that similar relaxation ought to have been extended in the present recruitment process. They claimed that the refusal to do so was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The case therefore presented an important question concerning the relationship between administrative policy, recruitment delays, and constitutional guarantees of equality in public employment. More specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine whether a candidate who becomes overage due to a gap in recruitment cycles acquires a legal right to demand age relaxation and whether courts can compel the Government to modify eligibility conditions contained in a recruitment advertisement.
The judgment ultimately provides an important exposition of settled principles governing recruitment policies, age eligibility criteria, and the limited scope of judicial review in service matters.
Arguments of the Parties:
The applicants contended that the prescription of a maximum age limit of 28 years in the advertisement was unfair in the peculiar circumstances of the case. They argued that the previous recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector had been conducted in 2021 and that no recruitment had taken place thereafter for more than three years. Because of this prolonged gap, numerous aspiring candidates who would have been eligible in the ordinary course became overage and consequently lost the opportunity to compete for government service.
According to the applicants, the State could not take advantage of its own delay. They submitted that when recruitment is not conducted regularly, deserving candidates suffer prejudice through no fault of their own. Therefore, fairness and equity required the Government to compensate for the lost recruitment opportunities by granting age relaxation.
The applicants also relied heavily upon the Government’s earlier decision granting age relaxation in the 2021 recruitment process. Through S.O. 420 of 2021, the upper age limit for Sub-Inspector recruitment had been increased from 28 years to 30 years. The applicants argued that the rationale underlying that relaxation applied equally to the present recruitment. In their view, denying similar relief while conducting recruitment after another substantial gap amounted to arbitrary treatment.
It was further contended that the exclusion of overage candidates violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicants maintained that equality in public employment requires the State to provide a reasonable opportunity to all eligible candidates. By failing to account for the delay in recruitment, the Government effectively deprived a class of candidates of access to public employment.
The applicants also invoked Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. According to them, the Government possesses the power to relax rules in situations involving hardship. Since the present case involved a large number of candidates who had become overage due to circumstances beyond their control, the power of relaxation ought to have been exercised.
The applicants sought directions permitting relaxation of the upper age limit up to 35 years in certain cases and up to 30 years in others. They further requested acceptance of their application forms and permission to participate in the selection process pending adjudication of their claims.
The respondents, comprising the Union Territory administration and the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, strongly opposed the applications. They submitted that the recruitment process had been initiated strictly in accordance with the governing recruitment rules and administrative policies.
The respondents explained that following the issuance of S.O. 214 of 2021, recruitment to the posts of Constables and Sub-Inspectors in the Jammu and Kashmir Police had been entrusted to the JKSSB. The present recruitment exercise was conducted in compliance with the applicable statutory framework and the age criteria reflected the policy determination of the competent authority.
The respondents emphasized that the age relaxation granted in 2021 was an exceptional measure necessitated by the extraordinary circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. It was specifically intended as a one-time concession and could not be treated as a precedent creating a continuing entitlement for future recruitment exercises.
The Government further argued that the post of Sub-Inspector in the police force is physically demanding and requires a high degree of fitness, endurance, and operational capability. The prescription of a lower upper-age limit was therefore based on legitimate administrative considerations and had a direct nexus with the nature of duties attached to the post.
The respondents also submitted that courts have consistently held that fixation of eligibility conditions, including age limits, falls within the exclusive policy-making authority of the employer. Unless the prescribed criteria are shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or unconstitutional, judicial interference is impermissible.
According to the respondents, no legal right accrued in favour of the applicants merely because recruitment had not been conducted during a particular period. They maintained that public employment can only be claimed in accordance with the rules in force and not on the basis of expectations arising from previous recruitment exercises.
Thus, while the applicants sought relief based on considerations of fairness and lost opportunity, the respondents defended the recruitment notification as a valid exercise of administrative discretion consistent with established legal principles.
Court’s Judgment:
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed all the Original Applications and upheld the validity of the recruitment notification prescribing the upper age limit of 28 years for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Jammu and Kashmir Police.
At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the issue raised by the applicants had already been considered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in Dinesh Singh Chib & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Others. In that case, the High Court had declined to interfere with the recruitment notification and observed that the petitioners ought first to approach the competent authority empowered to consider age relaxation. The High Court had also emphasized that judicial review ordinarily examines administrative decisions rather than hypothetical grievances unsupported by any decision-making process.
The Tribunal further relied upon its own earlier judgment concerning age relaxation claims in recruitment to the post of Constable. In that decision, it had examined similar arguments based on recruitment delay and had rejected the contention that such delay automatically generates a right to age relaxation.
A central aspect of the Tribunal’s reasoning was its reaffirmation of the principle that fixation of age limits is fundamentally a matter of policy. The Bench observed that determining eligibility criteria involves balancing administrative requirements, service needs, and operational considerations. Courts and tribunals are not equipped to substitute their own views for those of the policy-making authority.
The Tribunal categorically stated:
“Delay in recruitment, by itself, does not create a vested right to seek relaxation; fixation of age limit is a matter of policy; and Courts/Tribunals cannot rewrite eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement.”
This observation reflects the well-established doctrine that judicial review does not extend to redesigning recruitment policies. The role of the Court is confined to examining legality, constitutionality, and procedural fairness rather than formulating recruitment criteria.
Addressing the applicants’ reliance upon the age relaxation granted in 2021, the Tribunal held that the concession was clearly intended as a one-time measure necessitated by exceptional circumstances. The Bench rejected the argument that such relaxation had created a precedent binding the Government in future recruitment exercises.
The Tribunal observed:
“A one-time relaxation granted in a previous recruitment process cannot be converted into a perpetual rule for all future recruitments. No candidate can claim parity in illegality or claim extension of a special benefit granted in a different factual setting.”
The Tribunal emphasized that each recruitment process must be assessed on its own terms and that concessions granted under extraordinary circumstances cannot automatically be imported into subsequent recruitment cycles.
The judgment also focused on the concept of vested rights. According to the Tribunal, a candidate acquires a right to consideration only upon satisfying the eligibility conditions prescribed in the relevant rules and advertisement. A person who is overage under the applicable criteria cannot claim consideration as a matter of right.
The Tribunal expressly observed:
“Delay in holding recruitment does not confer a vested right upon an overage candidate to compel the employer to relax eligibility conditions. A right to be considered arises only if a candidate satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed under the rules and advertisement.”
To support its conclusions, the Tribunal relied upon authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court. It referred to Amit Lal Bhat (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 614, wherein the Supreme Court held that a candidate who becomes overage cannot insist upon age relaxation merely because recruitment was not conducted earlier.
The Tribunal also cited Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) 6 SCC 362. In that case, the Supreme Court reiterated that courts cannot add to, modify, or rewrite eligibility conditions prescribed in recruitment advertisements. Judicial intervention is warranted only where the prescribed criteria are arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.
Applying these principles, the Tribunal found no arbitrariness in the age limit of 28 years. It accepted the Government’s contention that the post of Sub-Inspector is a disciplined and physically demanding position requiring young and energetic personnel. Consequently, the prescribed age limit had a rational nexus with the nature and responsibilities of the post.
The Tribunal also rejected the constitutional challenge based on Articles 14 and 16. It held that the applicants had failed to establish discrimination, mala fides, hostile treatment, or any violation of equality principles. Since the age criterion applied uniformly to all candidates within the same category, no case of unequal treatment was made out.
While dismissing the applications, the Tribunal nevertheless acknowledged that the applicants were free to pursue administrative remedies. Accordingly, it granted liberty to them to submit representations before the competent authority within two weeks. The competent authority was directed to consider such representations and pass reasoned orders within six weeks in accordance with law.
Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that the recruitment process would continue uninterrupted and would not be stalled merely because representations were submitted.
The judgment reinforces a long-standing principle of service jurisprudence that courts cannot create eligibility relaxations where none exist under the governing rules. While recognizing the hardship faced by overage candidates, the Tribunal held that sympathy cannot override statutory requirements or policy decisions. The ruling thus underscores the distinction between equitable considerations and enforceable legal rights, reaffirming that age relaxation remains a matter of governmental discretion rather than judicial mandate.